Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
We would use heliox if it were readily available to the whole team - we can not get the pressure up high enough unless everyone had a booster or a compressor - the stuff comes at 2400 psi. We go as high as we can on the helium now, but have a minimum standard to start from , and that standard is based on the deepest posible point of the dive, not the expected profile. We way reduce the oxygen fraction due to the time of the dives, and due to the fact that long ago we discovered that decompression is your friend, not the subject of fear and loathing that is taught by the pretenders out there. Ben Greenhouse wrote: > > While I don't know enough about argon to speculate on it's uses, may I ask a > question that may be common knowledge out there? While George and the WKPP > espouse the benefits of doing deeper stops on trimix (which makes a whole lot > of sense), why not take it one step further and increase the PN2 gradient by > eliminating Nitrogen altogether and decompressing on heliox? As far as I know > (and that's not a whole lot on trimix), the reason for leaving Nitrogen in at > all is to reduce the symptoms of HPNS at extreme depths, and perhaps to negate > some of the poor thermal qualities given to the mix by helium. But at > shallower depths (than bottom), and using argon, would the reduction in deco > time (if there is one(?)) be worth the reduction in thermal insulation. I > imagine someone's given this some thought and could enlighten me. Of course, > it could be simply more logistically feasible to use trimix (that may have > been your bottom mix) rather than a separate stage of heliox. > > Ben > > andrew wrote: > > > Will, > > > > Interesting idea. Why not push it to the extreme? We have already decided > > that doing the 3m stop at 6m was better. If diving Argox50, why not do the > > whole deco at 20m? (Or at least something that is reasonably safe > > considering the ongassing of Argon at 20m.) > > > > Andrew > > andrew@ce*.co*.jp* > > > > On Sunday, January 18, 1998 5:47 AM, William M. Smithers > > [SMTP:will@tr*.co*] wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, 17 Jan 1998, William M. Smithers wrote: > > > > > > > > Anybody know why? In theory, Argox should give > > > > all the advantages of deco on 100% O2, while > > > > totally eliminating O2 toxicity concerns. > > > > > > Actually, I should have been more precise, Argox > > > would give the same He/N2 off-gassing gradient (window) > > > as 100% O2, eliminate O2 tox concerns, and > > > offer less vasoconstriction. The only thing > > > it wouldn't have going for it the slightly lessened > > > ability to directly oxygenate any tissues where bubble > > > formation was causing unnoticed circulation > > > blockages (if this does in fact occur). > > > > > > -Will > > -- > > Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. > > Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'. > > -- > Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. > Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'. -- Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]